Shelby County v. City of Memphis
| Decision Date | 07 February 1963 |
| Citation | 15 McCanless 410,365 S.W.2d 291,211 Tenn. 410 |
| Parties | , 211 Tenn. 410 COUNTY OF SHELBY et al. v. CITY OF MEMPHIS et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
R. Lee Winchester, Jr., Memphis, for appellants.
Frank B. Gianotti, Jr., City Atty., David L. Simpson, Asst. City Atty., Memphis, Jack Petree, E. Brady Bartusch, Memphis, George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., David M. Pack, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellees.
This is a suit under the Declaratory Judgments Act (T.C.A. Sec. 23-1102 et seq.) for the construction of the provisions of Chapter 343 of the Private Acts of 1961.
The defendant, City of Memphis, filed an answer. The remaining defendants filed demurrers. Neither the answer nor the demurrers raise the question of the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court at Nashville to hear and determine this case.
This Court, sua sponte, is forced to reverse and dismiss this case for the reason that the Chancery Court at Nashville had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, nor of the defendant, City of Memphis, and any order entered by that Court or by this Court passing upon matters presented in the pleadings would be of no force or effect.
In the case of Mayor and City Council of Nashville v. Webb et al., 114 Tenn. 432, 85 S.W. 404, we said that the Courts of our State had no jurisdiction of local actions brought in the wrong county and consent cannot give jurisdiction. Webb brought suit in the Circuit Court of Wilson County against the N. C. & St. L. Railway Company and Louisville & Nashville Railway Company and the City of Nashville. Service of process was had on the two defendant Railroad Companies and counterpart process was issued to Davidson County and served upon the Mayor of the City of Nashville. The City did not enter its appearance in the cause, or make any defense to the action with the result that a judgment by default was entered in the amount of $4,000.00.
The City of Nashville the brought suit in the Chancery Court at Nashville to enjoin the execution of said judgment. In deciding this case the Court said:
The Court further said:
'It is perfectly obvious that a local action could not be turned into a transitory one, or one in effect transitory, by the device of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lovlace v. Copley, M2011-00170-COA-R3-CV
...872 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Tenn. 1994). It does not depend on the conduct or agreement of the parties, see Shelby County v. City of Memphis, 211 Tenn. 410, 413, 365 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Tenn. 1963); James v. Kennedy, 174 Tenn. 591, 595, 129 S.W.2d 215, 216 (Tenn. 1939), and thus the parties cannot co......
-
SunTrust Bank, Nashville v. Johnson
...872 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Tenn.1994). It does not depend upon the conduct or the agreement of the parties, Shelby County v. City of Memphis, 211 Tenn. 410, 413, 365 S.W.2d 291, 292 (1963). Thus, the parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by appearance, plea, consent, silenc......
-
Winston v. Millaud
...A court's subject matter jurisdiction does not depend on the conduct or agreement of the parties. See, Shelby County v. City of Memphis, 211 Tenn. 410, 413, 365 S.W.2d 291, 292 (1963). Moreover, the parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a trial or an appellate court by appear......
-
Computer Shoppe, Inc. v. State
...Kane v. Kane, 547 S.W.2d 559, 560 (Tenn.1977). It cannot be conferred by the parties' conduct. Shelby County v. City of Memphis, 211 Tenn. 410, 413, 365 S.W.2d 291, 292 (1963); Seagram Distillers Co. v. Jones, 548 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Tenn.Ct.App.1976). Accordingly, we find that the bureaucrati......